🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3n4rkl$g...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
Jeffrey Lee Woodall <jlwo...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Mark R. Johnson (m...@knapp24.res.iastate.edu) wrote:
>
>: OS/2 has been doing all this since 2.0
>
>Automaticly adjusting memory per app as required? Dont think so.
>


As far as I could tell while running OS/2, the memory usage is dynamic.  You
simply set a memory LIMIT.  The one indication I had of this was running
3D Studio under OS/2.  If you checked the status display, your memory
available and memory used were always equal... but it would grow and shrink.
It might read "1024k used of 1024k total" one second, then the next you'll
find "2048k used of 2048k total".


>: Gee, OS/2 does all this now, has been doing it for years, and will 
>: continue to do it.  Get a clue.
>
>But not as well.  YOU get a clue.


Who cares if an operating system has been doing "such and such" for years.
That shouldn't be the point.  The point is that the "operating system" that
most people are familiar with and (most likely) most people are using is
now offering the capabilities that they've seen elsewhere.  Did all the
UNIX users have this debate with the OS/2 users when OS/2 first arrived?

Most people would agree that it's probably easier to move from DOS to OS/2
then it is to move from DOS to UNIX.  In the same way, I'm sure most people
will have a much easier time moving from Windows to Windows 95.  It will
probably be a much easier trip and it will offer most of the capabilities
that Windows v3.1 users have wanted.  Most people would like to simply 
enhance their current operating system rather than switch to a new one 
everytime a new feature comes along.

Someone also mentioned the lack of Windows NT apps.  Windows NT is by no means
meant for the home user, and almost every time I've seen it running... it
was acting as a Network server.  As far as I know, the individual workstations
ran normal Windows for Workgroups.


 
-- 

Emilio Galasso
a260...@cdf.toronto.edu
University of Toronto, Computer Science.